Brendan O’Neill First Hurdle Fail

Last week, I took a few minutes to give the well-intentioned people at Spiked! the hard word, and requested that they desist from sending their regular emails telling of the latest contrarian guff from the likes of Brendan O’Neill, who is not on Twitter, most likely to avoid the inevitable barrage of ridicule. Why I should have done this was then illustrated superbly by the man himself.

Brendan O'Neill ...

Having been given a platform at the bear pit that is Telegraph blogs, Bren regaled his adoring readers (Damian and James Delingbonkers) with the assertion “Labour's plan to give 16-year-olds the vote is cynical gerrymandering”, followed by several paragraphs of self-justifying bullshit which could be picked apart all too easily. Moreover, he clearly hadn’t been listening to his fellow Tel bloggers.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is not guaranteed to give any political party an advantage, as was demonstrated by the loathsome Toby Young, who – for once – not only consulted some of those pesky statistics, but also got them, indirectly, from the deeply subversive Guardian, to show that support for the Tories among younger voters has increased in the last few years.

... and the figures he couldn't be bothered with

This discovery had been previously picked up on by resident spinner Mark Wallace, formerly of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, at Conservative Home. The poll he cites shows that what is known as “Generation Y”, those born between 1980 and 2000, is the only group of the four researched to show an increase. So giving the vote to 16 year olds may not be such a lost cause after all.

That means when O’Neill says “This is naked generational gerrymandering, a desperate stab to improve Labour's electoral fortunes by meddling with the voting age rather than by giving actual, already existing adult voters something worth voting for ... Labour's bigwigs hope that ... a new swathe of largely immature, Left-feeling voters, will boost its ability to win and secure power”, he’s talking crap.

It gets worse: “Hilariously, some people try to present the enfranchisement of 16-year-olds as the unfinished business of universal suffrage ... There is a massive difference between those earlier historic extensions of the franchise and Miliband's plans: in the past, working men and women fought long and hard, marched tirelessly ... There are no rabble-rousing 16-year-olds demanding the right to vote”.

Have I got news for Bren: there was no mass movement to lower the voting age to 18 either. Would he, on that basis, like to return that minimum age to 21? But O’Neill is adamant: “This might just be enough to make me go out and vote at the next election – against Labour”. As if anyone gives a flying foxtrot what one discredited phony “I’m a leftie, me” contrarian does with his ballot paper.

Give up pretending to know your subject Bren, and go get yourself a proper job.

Farage Joins The Fruitcakes

Two figures pursuing their careers on opposite sides of the North Atlantic may this afternoon be expressing surprise at the latest pronouncements from Nigel “Thirsty” Farage. One of those is Young Dave, who might not have had the UKIP leader in mind when he characterised the party as being full of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” not so long ago.

And the other is Piers Morgan, who has been trying with limited success to persuade a largely hostile audience in the USA that more guns do not bring more safety, but only more shootings by more people who are not best trained, or in the best frame of mind, to use the weaponry to which there is such ready access. Because Farage has called the post-Dunblane handgun ban “ludicrous”.

Appearing before the inquisition of Nick Ferrari on LBC, “Thirsty” said “that it was Ukip policy to create a ‘proper licensing policy’ and that people who kept hand guns responsibility locked up and had were willing to get an official license should ‘absolutely’ be allowed them”. Needless to say, this suggestion was not well received by those who work with law enforcement officers.

Peter Squires, who advises ACPO, said of Farage’s suggestion that “It will generate a demand, it will generate illegal traffic around that demand – the problem with hand guns is that they are small and concealable and they are already the weapon of choice of gangs members and criminals ... If public safety is a consideration then it’s a particularly stupid thing to say”.

That his political opponents will seize on Farage’s comments goes without saying, especially in the wake of a UKIP councillor asserting that recent flooding was caused in part by laws legalising same-sex marriage, and that councillor only being suspended after some delay. And, as the man said, there’s more: Nige was given a good going over on the BBC’s Daily Politics yesterday.

Andrew “Brillo Pad” Neil’s questioning on the 2010 UKIP manifesto led to Farage describing it as “drivel”, suggesting that he had nothing to do with it as he was not leading the party at the time, and dissociating himself from it. But, as Iain Martin has discovered, “Thirsty” co-authored the forward to the manifesto, and attended the press conference at which it was launched.

Is Nige starting to crack up under the strain of having to shoulder so much of the burden himself? Common sense should have told him that he was wrong-footed on the councillor who equated heavy rain with gay marriage, wrong to openly distance himself from a manifesto that had his fingerprints all over it, and plain daft to advocate relaxation of the UK’s gun laws.

The most recent gaffe suggests that Farage is indeed one of the fruitcakes.

Littlejohn Tells More Porkies

The thought that the regime of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre might not be forever at the Daily Mail appears to have had a briefly galvanising effect on the paper’s unfunny and tedious churnalist Richard Littlejohn, who has today rummaged through his back catalogue of remaindered and unwanted books to tell his readers that the country is once more “going to hell in a handcart”.

Councils, Guv? They're spending my wedge, innit?!?

This may surprise those for whom this morning looks very much like yesterday morning, but Dicky Windbag is a man with a mission, and that mission is to scream his message so loud and so often that someone makes the mistake of believing it. He has the advantage that his targets are public servants, and he has the backing of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) as well as the Mail’s own slanted copy.

Yes, for those of us wondering what the TPA has been up to of late, they have been going after councils over their issuing of blue badges, and their approach to drunkenness, instead of saying boo about all the millions their pals out there on the right are spraying up the wall on things like unwanted Free Schools, the continuing shambles that is Universal Credit, and Bozza’s vanity projects.

Littlejohn’s first target is Walsall council, because some of those blue badges have been given to people who are less mobile because they are obese. “Some of them belong in mental hospitals” he claims, from a knowledge base of diddly squat. “most of those categorised as ‘obese’ are not genuinely disabled ... They are just fat and greedy and won’t stop stuffing their faces” he drones on.

And they’re all going to do it: “You can bet ... where Walsall leads, other councils will follow in the name of ‘compassion’ and being ‘non-judgmental’. They’ll be handing out blue badges by the tens of thousands to anyone who can prove they have ‘mobility issues’”. Really? “All assessments are undertaken by an independent mobility assessor in line with Government legislation on 1 April 2012”. So not really.

What’s his other compelling reason for that descent into hell? York council is looking at alternatives to convicting those who persistently get themselves tanked up and cause a nuisance to others. “anyone arrested five times for being falling-down drunk and disorderly will not be thrown in the slammer, they will be sent on a course to reflect on their ‘behaviour and self-image issues’” says Dick. And he’s not happy.

“Don’t you just hate that word ‘issues’, a weasely catch-all expression to excuse anyone who is unable to control their own base impulses”. Yeah, right. And the reality? “This is about finding the most effective way of tackling the issue and saving money in the long run - those sent on courses will have to bear the cost themselves”. So it’s a practical and pragmatic response to a known problem.

Dick, you’re a dick. Stay in Vero Beach and leave the UK to the grownups.

Gove Polecats Let Agenda Slip

Another long liquid lunch appears to have taken its toll on Michael “Oiky” Gove’s head polecats Dominic Cummings and Henry de Zoete, the less than august presence behind the @toryeducation Twitter feed, as they let slip the ultimate objective of the Gove revolution yesterday. Educators and parents may find some of the potential scenes distressing.

Yes, "Oiky", your polecats

And if the goals are achieved, it will make the upheavals caused by the appearance of all those Very Wonderful Free Schools in areas that don’t need them seem like calm and gradual change. Because what the Tories’ policy is working towards is to let the market assume full control, and to strip away any ability to hold power to account. Anyone thinking I jest need only read on.

The revelation came after a number of contradictory and obfuscatory moves from Dom and Hen, kicking off with their response to Alan Mills, who had rightly observed that the Twitter account was “Trivial, rude and unbelievably childish. How is it that education is led by these people?” to which the response was “It isn’t ... we’re nothing to do with [Gove]”.

That this was another pack of lunchtime-fuelled lies was then revealed in a frankly sinister response to Ruth Serwotka, who had prodded the less than dynamic duo on the saga of Kings Science Academy in Bradford: “Keep going with Kings all you like. We are thinking about new HR rules, pour encourager les autres”. But they have “nothing to do with Gove”? Oh what a giveaway!

Another Twitter enquiry tried to press @toryeducation further on the identity of its author, obtaining this reply: “Cummings is not a civil servant ... he has nothing to do with this account”. The first part is true: Cummings is a political appointee, but he is still paid out of taxpayer funds. And he may have “nothing to do with this account”, but that does not mean he is not a user of it.

Then came the one that should make folks sit up and take notice: “profits are a sideshow. The DREAM is total voucherisation. DfE just accountants. Ofsted gone. MPs zero control”. Fancy a bit of that, do you? Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money being thrown at whoever wants a bit of the action, and no democratic accountability? Taxation without representation?

There would be no control either, if there were no Ofsted. So some parents might get lucky, but the idea that there might be any equality of opportunity would go out of the window. And control of the purse strings would be down to folks like Cummings and de Zoete, and of course “Oiky” Gove, the bloke who thinks he can have a world in which all schools can be better than average.

Anyone still want to let the DfE carry on this way? Things will only get worse.

What’s Up At The Telegraph?

That newspapers are increasingly having to deal with changes dictated by the shift to more and more online readership is not a new thing. But the steady exodus from the Maily Telegraph was becoming a little obvious. Even so, the events of the past few days were as unexpected as they were dramatic, as all those going of their own volition were joined by at least one sacking.

Tony Gallagher - out at the Tel

The phrase “at least” will become clearer, but to start with what we know, Tony Gallagher, the editor of the weekday edition, left abruptly on Tuesday morning. He was “banged out” as he passed through the newsroom. Roy Greenslade at the Guardian noted that there had been a clash of personalities with recently hired “Chief content editor” Jason Seiken.

Benedict Brogan - next to go?

So there was the Tel with a new weekday editor for its print edition, when later the same day came a Tweet from Michael Taggart at MRM telling “I hear Benedict Brogan might be on his way”. “Famous last words” Brogan, who memorably talked of “Andy Coulson’s staying power in Downing Street” just before Young Dave’s then chief spinmeister resigned, was Gallagher’s deputy.

And both of them had previously worked at the Daily Mail, where the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre is on a rolling contract extending his tenure of the editor’s chair for just 12 months at a time. Was there any truth in the rumour? Well, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog thought so, as they signposted Brogan’s potential exit yesterday evening.

But morning came, and he was still in place, as evidenced by his morning email appearing right on cue. Had the Fawkes folks jumped the gun when they told “If there’s a Brogan email this morning, it won’t be from the deputy editor. Not fired, stripped of title and said to be consulting lawyers”? The man himself gave the impression that this was the case, but he would, wouldn’t he?

Nonetheless, The Great Guido stuck to his guns, asking “Is Brogan ‘In Office Without Power’?” in the style of Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse). Other strands to the rumour are that freelances are being offered next to nothing for their copy, something that will frighten rigid those who make a nice little earner from well-remunerated commissions from the likes of the Mail.

After all, if Dacre goes and rates go through the floor in his wake, who else is there? Right now we have the perfect storm: demoralised staffers at the Tel, not knowing who’s being thrown overboard next, and jumpy freelancers, queuing up to perhaps elbow their way into a bit of TV work as a hedge against a race to the bottom. But while we wait on Brogan, there could be a silver lining here.

Next expensive waste of space for the chop could be Boris. Cripes chaps!

Leaves On The Line – A Cautionary Tale

The press loves to trivialise potentially serious events when their staff find rail journeys taking a few minutes longer than usual, and one target is “leaves on the line” (examples from the Mail HERE, HERE and HERE). That this is a potentially lethal problem – Network Rail expends significant resources tackling it every Autumn – can be seen when it hits countries that don’t normally experience it.

An Intercity train from Porto to Lisbon pauses by the signal tower at Entroncamento. The train in the collision looked more or less like this

Leaf fall is almost unheard of on the Iberian peninsula. But last January, there had been heavy rain across Portugal, with strong winds and humid conditions to follow. Refer, the company that looks after rail infrastructure, had sent teams out to deal with leaf fall incidents. But there had been no accidents until the evening of January 21, on the main Lisbon to Porto line.

The Regional train was made up of two of these multiple units

Here, there is continuous signalling and train protection, but that cannot combat the compacted leaf mulch that builds up on the rail head. At around 2110 hours, a Regional (stopping) train from Entroncamento to Coimbra was approaching the station at Alfarelos. It should have stopped at the red signal in rear of the station before being put in the loop for a following Intercity train to pass.

Diagram showing the sequence of events (from Público.pt)

When the driver applied the brake, though, instead of the train slowing, it actually accelerated. There is a downwards gradient, and the train was sliding on a film of compacted leaves. After overrunning the red signal, the train protection system applied the emergency brake. By this time, the train had overshot the points that would have switched it away from the main line.

Aftermath of the collision. The locomotive of the Intercity train is covered in wreckage from the empty multiple unit. The blue plastic fragments are seats

But before any action could be taken by the signaller, the Intercity from Lisbon to Porto and Braga encountered the same problem. As can be seen from the diagram, the train began to slow as expected, but then lost grip and also overran the red signal in rear of Alfarelos station. Automatic application of the emergency brake could not prevent it rear-ending the Regional train at 42km/h.

Signals, train protection systems and all on-board equipment were in good working order. It couldn’t prevent the collision. And the effect of that collision was severe: the locomotive of the Intercity train embedded itself in the Regional, totalling the two rear coaches. Fortunately, that evening the Regional train was formed of two units with the rear one locked out. The damaged coaches were empty.

Otherwise the accident could have been deadly. In the UK, drivers know what to expect in leaf fall season. In countries where it needs a freak combination of weather events – and happens at an equally unexpected time of year – there is nothing trivial or jokey about “leaves on the line”. There were a lot of passengers on board the Intercity train that evening. It could have been a lot worse.

That’s something to bear in mind when the press starts up about it next Autumn.

Toby Young’s Fantasy Pact

The writ for the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election has been moved by Labour, and the party has opted for a short campaign, with polling to take place on 13th February. This, for the loathsome Toby Young, has been the cue to use the platform given him at the bear pit that is Telegraph blogs to peddle his “Country before party” campaign, a doomed effort at Tory and UKIP collaboration.

Get out of cellar before pontificating

Tobes has got it into his metropolitan and London-centric head that Nigel “Thirsty” Farage and his fellow saloon bar propper-uppers can win the seat. Sadly, this is weapons grade bullshit, as anyone who had ventured to Euston for the two-hour trip to Stockport would have told him (they’re every 20 minutes Tobes, you’ve no excuse). For starters, his geography is lamentably bad.

On voting UKIP in Wythenshawe and Sale East, he tells “local Tories are unlikely to do this in large numbers unless they get something in return. For that reason, the Country Before Party campaign is also encouraging the Ukip association in the neighbouring constituency of Bury North to announce it won't be fielding a candidate against David Nuttall in 2015”. Neighbouring constituency?

Bury is several miles the other side of Manchester from Wythenshawe. Would Tobes describe Barking as a “neighbouring constituency” of Putney? Of course he wouldn’t. Then he fails to notice that UKIP’s candidate in the upcoming by-election is a former Labour supporter. Tory voters – mainly concentrated in the relatively prosperous east of the constituency – should vote for a former Labour man?

It gets worse: the last Parliamentary contest in the area was in Manchester Central two years ago. Labour’s Lucy Powell secured 69% of the vote and UKIP came fourth, behind the Lib Dems and Tories (although this was an improvement on the party’s sixth place in 2010). True, the turnout was a lousy 18%, but if there had been any appetite to see UKIP do well, they would have done.

Worse still for Tobes, there was a council by-election in Broadheath – just outside the Wythenshawe and Sale East area to the south-west – last Thursday. In a ward that had returned a Tory councillor in 2011, Labour won and UKIP were a distant third. Farage’s representative improved his vote share by 3%, but the victorious Labour candidate improved hers by 4%.

All of which leads to one conclusion: Toby Young should stop pretending he knows any more than diddly squat about what’s happening in the southern Manchester suburbs until he’s got off his arse and done some research – like making a visit and seeing the place first hand, rather than pontificating from 180 miles away. Right now, his “Country before party” idea is a dead duck.

Stick to shilling for Michael “Oiky” Gove, Tobes. You’re useless at that, too.

Don’t Menshn The Rennard Hypocrisy

The Rennard affair has had a side-show on the go for the last day and a half, the denunciation of Guardian man Michael White following his suggestion that some of those commenting needed to show a sense of proportion: “Homophobia remains a lethal fact of life in many parts of the world and slavery, female genital mutilation and other horrors are still widely inflicted on women, even in Britain. A clammy hand on the knee is not quite the same” he concluded.

Has she got news for us? Not yet

Note that White did not say “a clammy hand on the knee” was somehow admissible behaviour, to be ignored, or otherwise trivial (and nor do I). Some responded adversely but sincerely, notable the formidable Stella Creasy. Then came former Tory MP Louise Mensch, spotting a bandwagon onto which she could jump.

Among her more creative contributions was “It is not only appalling that Michael White wrote an apology for groping today but also that the Guardian published it”. He didn’t condone, or apologise for, groping. But what about others who said more or less the same thing? Like professional motormouth Katie Hopkins, who told “The Rennard women need to man up and get a grip. OK he rubbed your leg. Tell him to stop. Quit tormenting a gentle giant through the media”.

Did White make things worse with an over-familiar tone?

But criticism of Ms Hopkins came there none. She and Ms Mensch are, of course, both columnists on the Murdoch Sun, but maybe other factors are in play. Perhaps White made a rod for his own back by calling Ms Mensch “Lou”, something to which she objected vehemently. Sadly not: this is more faux outrage. He used the term last November, and she called him Mike in return. Without objecting.

The subject didn't object last November

Or perhaps this is because Katie was just sounding off on Twitter? Again, no: this morning Sarah Vine has come to more or less the same conclusion as White in her Mail column: “But if what has been claimed is all he is guilty of, then this entire affair is one gigantic over-reaction” (she, too, does not condone or excuse that behaviour). Stella Creasy took issue with Ms Vine. Louise Mensch was absent.

Maybe it was because it was a man making the comments, then? That, too, has already been debunked after Rod Liddle made a customarily unsubtle intervention yesterday in the Spectator: “Will the women apologise to Rennard?” he asked, following with “They think they’ve been wronged and no QC will disabuse them of that mistaken idea. Grow up”. Cathy Newman saw that. Ms Mensch didn’t.

There is only one reason for Louise Mensch’s attack on Michael White, and that is to once again kick the Guardian. She steered clear of the Sun pundit, the wife of one of her former fellow Tory MPs, and the resident contrarian at the Speccy just so that she could use the Rennard affair for her own vindictive ends.

And, like her other Guardian bashing efforts, it failed. But Rupe will be pleased.

PMQs – Itch-A-Sketch 3

So what is it to be today when Young Dave takes on all comers across the Dispatch Box? He may have to delicately bodyswerve anything on the Lib Dems – his coalition partners – and the Rennard ruckus. He’s got some moderately good unemployment numbers to deploy. Someone on the Labour benches may throw him a curve ball on Aidan Burley, which could spice things up a bit. Eyes down, look in.

After a tribute to Del Singh and Simon Chase, killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, off we go with Stephen Timms on the Trussel Trust and food banks. Young Dave is well used to these: it’s expertly deflected by saying how jolly well the Trust is doing, that he’d be happy to meet with them, and that it’s equally jolly good that Job Centres advertised such facilities.

Mil The Younger wants to talk about taking Syrian refugees. Cameron says that this is the wrong question. He ought to be congratulating the PM on our Very Wonderful aid commitment. This gets nowhere, probably because in the outturn there isn’t any real disagreement. Cameron doesn’t want a fixed quota but it looks like we’ll take some on a “most vulnerable” basis. It’s all a bit lukewarm so far.

Oh look out, here come the unemployment figures, for which Miliband is comprehensively cat-called. Boo! Rubbish! Gerroff! At least we’ve got a real disagreement: Cam says tax cuts mean people are better off even if their pay has fallen. Mil says he’s complacent. Cam falls back on “Every week he comes here and asks for answers on something his lot did”.

Just to up the volume a bit more, Miliband makes a Bullingdon Club reference and reminds Cameron that 13 million are living in poverty. Dave snaps, doubles down on his “all the last lot’s fault” routine and says his opponent is like an arsonist. All good civilised stuff. Helpfully, Duncan Hames in on hand to move questioning on to immunity from prosecution for war crimes in Syria – or not.

And in between all of this there is softball and grovelling from the Tory side. Today’s roll of shame includes Neil Parish, Simon Kirby, Chris Pincher, Mark Pawsey, Jonathan Lord, Damian Hinds, and David “TC” Davies, the last-named giving Cameron an opportunity to bash the rotten lefties running the Welsh Assembly Government. But one from his own side catches the PM out at the death.

Rob Halfon, populist Member for Harlow, asks about energy companies penalising customers – often older people – who were unable to pay their bills by Direct Debit. Dave flannels about forcing those companies to offer the cheapest tariff. But he does not answer Halfon’s point about the discrimination that results when so many still do not have a bank account. Well done Halfon.

Otherwise, nothing conclusive in the head-to-head. I do hope the next one’s better.

Curly Burley Not In The Clear Yet

[Update at end of post]

Regular visitors to Zelo Street may remember the little local difficulty encountered by Cannock Chase’s Tory MP Aidan Burley in late 2011 when he was sacked as a PPS after it was revealed that he not only took part in a Nazi-themed stag party at a restaurant in the Alpine resort of Val Thorens, but was the one who provided the SS uniform for one of the participants.

One group who most certainly remembered Burley’s gaffe – as he had tried to tell them how very sorry he was before his uniform hiring exploits were revealed and he got the boot – was the staff of the Jewish Chronicle. With the court case faced by Mark Fournier, the one who wore that SS uniform, coming to a close last month, the JC urged the Tories to “Come clean on Aidan Burley”.

And the JC observed that “Mr Fournier’s lawyer argued that it was unfair that his client faced prosecution because it had been Mr Burley, he alleged, who bought the outfit”. Well, Fournier got suitably guilty and has been fined €1,500 for “wearing a uniform or insignia of an organisation guilty of crime against humanity”. He must also pay €1,000 to an organisation representing Holocaust victims’ families.

But the Tories have taken the JC’s advice and published Lord Gold’s report on the affair, in which he concludes “that Mr Burley's conduct caused deep offence and that he acted in an unacceptable and offensive way … Mr Burley is not a bad man, still less a racist or anti-Semite. However, his actions were stupid and offensive, and the conclusions and recommendations reflect that”.

Not surprisingly, Labour MPs like Ian Austin are unimpressed: “He claimed at the time that this event was a fancy dress party, and he told his constituents and the Jewish Chronicle that he had not known what was going to happen. The trial in France and this report shows neither of those statements was true and it beggars belief that anyone should believe him now. His behaviour was an absolute disgrace”.

And sadly for the Tories, Burley, rather than keeping schtum and not digging himself in any deeper, has ignored Healey’s Dictum and told the Express And Star “The point I was trying to make to the Jewish Chronicle was that there was unacceptable behaviour by some of the other guests in trying to do a toast to the ideology of the Third Reich”. Yes, he bought the uniform but it was someone else’s fault.

Then he really sold the pass: “It was done in the spirit of mocking the Nazis”, to which I call bullshit. And remember, that’s his most widely-read local paper in which he’s trying to spin that rubbish. He also put his foot in it on the Olympic opening ceremony, whining that it was “leftie multicultural crap”. But even if the Tories stick by him, Burley’s real test is next year with his electorate.

Whether Cannock Chase wants a serial liar to represent it is rather doubtful.

[UPDATE 1435 hours: Ian Austin has not merely commented on the Gold Report into Aidan Burley's conduct, but has also written to the Tory peer, and the full text of his letter has been published by Political Scrapbook.

As Austin points out, Burley made a number of assertions, which Gold accepted, but which were shown later not to have been true. For this alone, Austin's claim that the Gold Report is a "whitewash" is both credible and damning.

Moreover, that an MP from a nearby constituency - Ian Austin represents Dudley - is on the case is bad news for Burley, as Austin's pursuit of the issue means it is more likely that his views will get into papers like the Express and Star, and also into election literature next year. Of course, Aidan Burley could jump before getting pushed. This may yet come to pass]

Delingpole Excuses Farage

Nigel “Thirsty” Farage has once again been generating copy for the Fourth Estate, and for once perhaps not in the way that he would have liked. Addressing a debate on the City and the EU yesterday, his answer to one questioner was summed up as “claiming that women who take time off work to have children are ‘worth less’ to City employers than men”.

This did not endear him to many commentators, not least Harriet Harman: “To see a row of men sitting there and one of them saying that women are worth less to their employers than men are because they take time off to look after children I think is absolutely rubbish. There's not a single business or public service in this country which would still have the lights on if women weren't there at work”.

And the questioner, Siân Hawkins, was similarly unmoved: “The response I got when I asked Farage about the gender pay gap in the City was perhaps predictable. I was surprised, however, at the chorus of murmuring agreement and head nodding from fellow audience members ... His claims that there is no longer sexism in the City and that the ‘old boys' club’ has been disbanded are laughable”.

Ms Hawkins noted also that “The seated audience was 90% male, as well as predominantly white and over the age of 40. The panel, of four male speakers and one male chair, was introduced by a male representative from the sponsor”. That the Guardian had not only found adversely on his hero, but also given space to his questioner, was too much for one recent UKIP convert.

Step forward James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole, to tell his adoring readers (Damian and Toby Bonkers) that “Nigel Farage says the unsayable: women have maternal impulses and wombs!” followed by “As a former City trader himself, of course, Nigel Farage knows whereof he speaks” before outlining a world in which blokes keep on working while women have kids and so must then look after them.

Then Ms Harman gets the obligatory rubbishing “Wimmin like Harriet Harman use their gender in their way that agitators from various ethnic groups use their race (or in the case of Islamists, their religion): they have long striven to create a climate where, unless you're a paid up member of the appropriate minority, you shouldn't be allowed even to discuss the issue. Hence Harman's silly, emotive comment about the panel on which Farage appeared being ‘all male’”.

Yes, Farage was right and anyone dissenting was wrong, and not only that, the ruckus over the UKIP councillor who suggested recent flooding was down to same-sex marriage was a “non-story”. Del Boy, like his party leader, gives the impression of thinking the world is partly stuck in the 1960s. And he missed the main point.

Farage opened mouth and inserted boot. That can’t be spun otherwise. End of story.

Gove’s Bradford Problem Worsens

Two of the most sensitive issues for Education Secretary Michael “Oiky” Gove and his cheerleaders have been the disclosure of information on, and the accountability of, all those supposedly Very Wonderful Free Schools. There have been challenges on both issues, but usually from campaigners and those on the left – not from right-leaning and usually supportive media outlets.

Yes, "Oiky", your flagship scheme

That all changed when the solidly conservative Yorkshire Post got its teeth into the problems of Kings Science Academy in Bradford. The YP, which until 2010 ran a regular Monday column by Bernard Dineen, who made Quentin Letts (let’s not) and Richard Littlejohn look like wet liberal softies, has supported the Tories even at the nadirs of the 1974 and 1997 General Elections.

So while the rest of the media caught up with the arrest of the school’s principal Sajid Raza – note that the Academy’s website says he was “released without charge”, which is not entirely true, and the correct term is “bailed” – the YP has run two further reports on the affair, neither of which will make comfortable reading for “Oiky” and his retinue of polecats back in London.

Last Friday the YP told that “THE Government is facing fresh demands to publish all its records of the phone calls officials made to fraud authorities about a scandal-hit Bradford free school which led to a six-month delay in a police investigation”, which may bring a smile from Laura McInerney, who has found extracting information from Gove and his department to be a challenging exercise.

As befits “Oiky’s” pals, the blame for any lack of transparency has been deflected elsewhere. But there was worse to come, as the YP revealed the school had run for a year with no chair of governors: “The DfE’s latest statement says that there was no chairman in place at the scandal-hit free school from October 2011 to October 2012”. This is, however, most convenient for Tory Party vice-chair Alan Lewis.

But it has not gone down well with the local council: “Bradford Council’s executive member for schools, Ralph Berry, has challenged the Department for Education (DfE) to find a local authority which has allowed this to happen with one of its own schools following the controversy over the King Science Academy in the city”. So what has the DfE said about this lapse?

“The department were explicitly informed by email from the Kings Science Academy that Alan Lewis took over as chair from October 1, 2011. We learnt in October 2012 that we had been misinformed” said the DfE. And the school can just carry on being in receipt of taxpayer funds, despite the Police investigation and their not being totally candid with the DfE? Would a maintained school have got away with that?

Right now, Gove and his fans are silent on this one. No surprise there, then.

Mail Rennard Hypocrisy

The obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre is at its most righteous and indignant today as it pours as much scorn and hostility as can be mustered on Corporal Clegg and the Lib Dems, following the latest episode in the long-running saga of Chris Rennard and his allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards a number of women in the party.

Who're you f***ing calling a hypocrite, c***?!?

“Sex Pest Storm: Clegg In Crisis” thunders the front page headline, with the addition of “‘Groping peer’ suspended because he won’t apologise ... He vows to sue Lib Dems ... Clegg’s accused of losing grip”. As Sir Sean nearly said, I think we got the point. And just to rub it in, readers are reminded that Clegg was “dubbed Calamity Clegg during a bitter leadership contest against Chris Huhne”.

So let’s look at the issue, which another “Daily Mail reporter” has helpfully outlined. “Four women are known to have made complaints about Lord Rennard’s behaviour. All of them have described inappropriate touching and advances”. Daily Mail Comment is most unhappy: “Almost six years have passed since Nick Clegg’s aides became aware of women’s complaints that they had been sexually harassed by their former chief executive”.

And the latter is the authentic voice of the Vagina Monologue himself. So sexism and inappropriate touching is clearly A Very Bad Thing, even to the Daily Mail. However, and here there is a significant however, that puts the paper in what Spike Milligan might have called A Very Difficult Position.

After all, sexism also includes demeaning women, like, oh I dunno, referring to them as “birds”, as in a recent Mail column which told “the dopey bird behind the wheel was taking her test. The consensus of opinion was that she failed”. Or a piece on a sexism complaint in the security services: “But if this dopey bird couldn’t cope with unwanted sexual advances from her boss, how on earth would she react if she was ever captured and tortured by the Taliban”?

Who on earth got away with all of that? Well, the same Mail pundit who observed “It's a pity that Dave [Cameron] wasn't sitting close enough to pat [Angela] Eagle on the forearm. That always works, too. I did it once to soppy Liberal MP Sarah Teather on a television panel and I thought she was going to implode”.

No prizes for recognising the routinely lamentable prose of the Mail’s unfunny and talentless churnalist Richard Littlejohn, for whom inappropriate and unwanted touching of Lib Dem MPs is fine. And Paul Dacre must agree, otherwise he would not be bunging The Sage Of Vero Beach the thick end of a million notes a year to regale readers with his pisspoor rantings. So that’s another slice of rank hypocrisy.

Do as Dacre says, not as his pundits do. No change there, then.

Dacre Blames Hacked Off For McAlpine Death

Nothing better demonstrates the desperate and viscerally malicious side of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre than the attempt today by Daily Mail Comment – the authentic voice of the Vagina Monologue – to lay the recent death of former Tory Party treasurer and fundraiser Alistair McAlpine at least partly at the door of those who have campaigned for independent press regulation.

The attack has also been joined by the preposterously puffed-up Simon Heffer, no doubt mindful that securing More And Bigger Paycheques For Himself Personally Now would be that much more difficult away from the Dacre patronage. The Hefferlump’s targets also include Sally Bercow: “I believe this ghastly woman hastened my friend's death”.

So no doubt there will be an encore tomorrow from Quentin Letts (let’s not), who loves to put the boot in on the Speaker’s wife. Meanwhile, back with the editorial, readers are told that “No one can know for sure the true toll the grotesque paedophile smear campaign against much-loved Tory grandee Lord McAlpine took on his health”, but that doesn’t stop what follows.

“Those responsible should hang their heads in shame. First among them is the self-styled ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism’ – closely linked to the Media Standards Trust and anti-Press lobby group Hacked Off – which concocted the original story wrongly implicating Lord McAlpine in historic allegations of sex abuse at a Welsh children’s home”. All conveniently lumped together.

And all conveniently wrong: the BIJ wasn’t directly responsible for the Newsnight story, it isn’t connected to either the MST or Hacked Off, and the latter is only “anti-press” in the little world of Paul Dacre. But the BIJ actually majors in proper investigative journalism, unlike the Daily Mail. And, as the man said, there’s more.

“It’s worth noting that Sir David Bell, assessor to the Leveson Inquiry on newspaper ethics and ardent campaigner for state regulation of the Press, is both a trustee of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and co-founder of the Media Standards Trust, which spawned Hacked Off. Was this mendacious hatchet job his idea of setting new journalistic standards?” the rant continues. And the answer is, no it wasn’t.

But you’ll love this bit: “Then there’s the BBC, which gleefully broadcast the slur story on its flagship Newsnight programme without bothering to check its veracity”. Which was that paper that hoaxed itself over the phony Paul Flowers Twitter feed? This is truly desperate stuff, even without roping in Sally Bercow. McAlpine was thought to be on his deathbed back in 1999. He had been in poor health for years. And to insult his memory by using it as a stick to beat the Mail’s targets is bang out of order.

Or, for Dacre, something where the ends justify the means. No change there, then.

Dominic Lawson Epic Journalism Fail

When Dominic Lawson, brother of Domestic Goddess (tm) Nigella and son of Tory Chancellor turned Climate Change denialist Nigel, replaced Melanie “not just Barking but halfway to Upminster” Phillips as the Daily Mail’s regular Monday columnist, the thought entered that this might be a safer pair of hands than the ranting, frothing and occasional legal action-prone Mad Mel.

What's f***ing wrong with my pundits, c***?!?

Sadly, with today’s effort, Dom has shown anyone with the most basic knowledge of the subject in which he is dabbling that he is just as bad as Ms Phillips at opening mouth and inserting boot: “This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked” reads the headline. Lawson has read an article in the Independent, and it has told him what he wants to hear.

The Indy’s article is titled “The lost girls: Illegal abortion widely used by some UK ethnic groups to avoid daughters 'has reduced female population by between 1,500 and 4,700'”, and purports to have statistical evidence that female foetuses are being aborted on demand by certain ethnic groups. This enables Lawson to lay into David Steel, who tabled the 1967 Abortion Act. He concluded thus.

“How humiliating for those running this vast department of state that a cash-strapped newspaper with a tiny fraction of their resources has dug deeper into the census figures and proved, to quote a lecturer in statistics from Imperial College, London, that ‘the only readily available explanation consistent with a statistically significant gender shift of the sort observed in the census data is gender-selective abortion’”.

How humiliating, also, that a blogger with a tiny fraction of the resources available to the Daily Mail and its legendarily foul mouthed editor had already exposed the Independent article as “A truly epic fail in data journalism” FOUR DAYS before Lawson’s rant was published. Yes, the Indy’s article passed before the inspection of Unity at Ministry of Truth last Thursday.

And he concluded thus: “I am genuinely at a loss to understand exactly what the Independent thinks it’s playing at here as the only halfway plausible explanation I can think of for any of this is that someone at the paper has run across Dubuc and Coleman’s study, failed miserably to understand any of it, least of all the entire methodology section, and then took an utterly half-arsed punt trying to pull off their own similar analysis without realising that they hadn’t got the first clue what they were doing”. So where was Dominic Lawson’s research?

Where his research was, was absent. What we have here is another excellent example of a well-resourced newspaper failing to bother itself with investigative journalism, and instead throwing money at overpaid and lazy columnists.

That results in yet another epic fail in data journalism. No change there, then.

Guido Fawked – Miliband Wasn’t Drinking Bitter

The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog thought they were on to a winner after Mil The Younger visited a microbrewery in Hackney last week and sampled the product. With a nod to one of their heroes, the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, they proudly announced “The Man Who Hated Bitter”, claiming that Miliband had not enjoyed the brew he sampled.

Nah, I'm not as interested in craft beer as getting ratarsed, shit no, news, yeah, about getting legless, bollocks no, politicians bang to rights. While getting pissed. Oh sod it

Sadly, quite apart from the debateable evidence – the video doesn’t prove anything one way or the other – the story is another example of the Fawkes folks failing to do their homework. A little application of the ancient and mysterious act known as “five minutes’ Googling” followed by a little background reading, tells you that what was offered to the Labour leader was not “bitter”.

I don't drink bitter, cos I'm on telly!

Miliband had visited the Five Points Brewing Company, whose range of beers, as befits a craft brewery, is not constrained by labels such as “bitter”, although they do produce a pale beer, Five Points Pale, which could be described thus, although that would be to do it an injustice, as this is a meeting of British and North American styles, using hops from the US West Coast.

Wrong again, lads ...

But that was not the beer sampled by the Labour leader, as the Five Points Twitter feed confirmed – on several occasions. It is clear from the video, and all the photos, that the beer was too dark to be called “bitter”. True, there are darker bitters produced – Barnsley Bitter from the Oakwell Brewery is one such – but this was yet darker. That should have given the Fawkes rabble a clue.

... here's the correct information

Or rather, it should have given a clue to anyone who knew their beer styles, which The Great Guido gives every sign of not doing. What was offered to Ed Miliband was Hook Island Red, a red rye ale brewed to an ABV of 6%, promising “lots of interesting tastes and aromas”. This, just in case the Fawkes folks have still not taken in the information, is not “bitter”.

There are pale beers brewed to that strength – lots of IPAs, such as Out Of Step IPA from Crewe’s own Offbeat Brewery at 5.8%, could at a stretch be called strong “bitter” ales – but anyone calling what Miliband sampled “bitter” would get laughed out of court by even semi-serious craft beer lovers. For people who consume so much in the way of alcoholic beverages, Staines and Co are worryingly clueless.

So back to the classroom for The Great Guido. Another fine mess, once again.

Paul Flowers – Daily Mail Hoaxes Itself

[Update at end of post]

It was the kind of story made for the faux outrage machine that is the Daily Mail: the Reverend Paul Flowers, former head of the Co-Operative Bank, a body that is part of a great Labour-supporting movement, was found to have been unfit for office, as well as being a regular user of currently illegal drugs and procurer of rent boys. The legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre was in his element.

What d'you mean I've f***ing hoaxed myself, c***?!?

“The rent boy and trysts in rooms paid for by the Co-op: Escort reveals Flowers sent him emails to organise drug-fuelled sex from his work account” thundered the headline as readers were told “The explosive allegations came as the Labour Party faced further damaging questions about its links with Flowers”. Yes, the rotten lefties were in it up to their necks!

“Pictures have emerged of a lavish reception hosted by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at 10 Downing Street for Flowers and fellow Co-op grandees while Labour was in power” says the paper whose editor was the only figure from the press to get one-on-one interviews with Maria Miller, Oliver Letwin and Young Dave, the last being at, you guessed it, 10 Downing Street. I do hope it wasn’t too “lavish”.

So when a Twitter account purporting to belong to the Rev. Flowers was set up, the Mail was on to it like a flash. “'Crystal Methodist' apologises for his antics and promises to go to rehab as he appears to open new Twitter account ahead of police visit” told the Mail last Monday – and note that James Chapman was one of the follower shown in the screen grab published by Mail Online.

And, as the man said, there’s more: “'Crystal Methodist' says he is going to write a BOOK about his 'recent exploits' as it emerges he is STILL being paid church salary of £11,000” followed the next day, with “Extraordinary Twitter confession of the Crystal Methodist: 'I got Co-op job only because of friends in high places'” in today’s Mail on Sunday. But there was a problem.

The Tweets were littered with shonky punctuation and grammar, with “I’m” missing its apostrophe, capitalising after commas, and using an apostrophe to denote a plural. Either Flowers had managed to hold down a string of jobs while not being totally literate, or someone was taking the piss. Today, we found out that it was the latter. Flowers’ lawyer declared the Twitter account to be a fake.

“Rev Paul Flowers’ Twitter account is FAKE, his lawyer tells me. 'Anyone who believes that is real needs psychiatric attention'” reported Julian Druker at 5 News, following up with “Rev Flowers’ lawyer tells me the fake Twitter account is 'at best mischief; at worst a perversion of the course of justice'”. Oh dear, Dacre doggies, you’ve not so much as been hoaxed, as hoaxed yourselves.

It couldn’t happen to more deserving hacks. Now try a nice slice of humble pie.

[UPDATE 1745 hours: the Tweeter behind the Paul Flowers fake account has 'fessed up to Julian Druker, telling "OK you blew my cover, yes the account is a fake but I did it to show up certain media & lazy journalism & that the whole system is corrupt".

One to bear in mind the next time the Dacre doggies try kicking the BBC, or indeed anyone else, for getting a story not quite right. No reply thus far from the Mail. What a surprise]

Gilligan – Whose Bidding Is He Doing?

That Andrew “transcription error” Gilligan is being given a platform by the Telegraph to smear Tower Hamlets’ elected Mayor Lutfur Rahman is not news: that he is doing it some time after being put on the City Hall payroll by his hero, London’s occasional Mayor Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, may be more worthy of attention – and more problematic for the Tory Party.

Waiting outside for his turn perhaps?

This is especially true, given Gilligan’s headline “Borough of Tower Hamlets: a byword for sleaze”. There is, to no surprise at all, no conclusive evidence offered up in support of this contention, but the usual Gilligan nod-and-wink suggesting Rahman is guilty of cronyism, that local Government finances are being misused, and that this is all down to those dastardly Muslims.

The mood is set at the outset as readers are told Rahman has “close links to Islamic extremism”. They are only “close” because Gilligan keeps doing the linking. Tower Hamlets is home, we’re told, to a “sinister redistribution of wealth by Britain’s most disturbing local authority”, although Rahman’s most vocal critic, apart from Gilligan, appears to be the leader of the Council’s opposition group.

Gilligan is in truly inspired form as he manages to blame Tower Hamlets’ move from conventional council to directly elected Mayoralty on the Islamic Forum of Europe, which he brands “extremist”. Then he smears the company which successfully tendered to buy Poplar Town Hall, because two of its shareholders know Rahman. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? He’s the sodding Mayor.

And the article is peppered with instances of “The council refused to respond to questions ... put to it by The Sunday Telegraph”, which actually means Gilligan’s been making a nuisance of himself again, officials at Tower Hamlets saw him coming, and he got told to shove off. If he’s got evidence of wrongdoing, he should bring it forward. He hasn’t, so he won’t.

The smears are at times desperate, such as: “One organisation that has received tens of thousands of pounds to run a ‘lunch club’ for Bengali pensioners and a ‘mother tongue’ school for 72 Bangladeshi children apparently conducts these activities from a two-bedroomed council flat”. They should go and rent a suite of offices as well? Sounds like rather good value for money.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the question of Gilligan’s employment at City Hall hangs over this article. The love of London Tories for laying into Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets is well known: Harry Phibbs (he does? What a surprise) and Grant “Spiv” Shapps have turned this into an art. Gilligan now being in the pay of a Tory Mayor makes three.

What was that about “a byword for sleaze”? Another draughty glasshouse, folks.

Mail Scrapes The Bigotry Barrel

Back in the less enlightened days of the 1970s, those of limited intellectual horizons who lived in cities like Bradford set great store by intimidating south Asian men who exhibited the effrontery to converse in Urdu or Hindi, telling them in no uncertain terms that they should “Speak English”, a rule that did not apply when the same morons went for their holidays in Spain or France.

There is no compulsion in law for anyone who lives in the UK to speak English – otherwise many in Wales, and a number in North-West Scotland, as well as those from other EU member states – might have a problem. Likewise, the authorities in Spain tolerate enclaves of migrants who do not speak one of that country’s four languages, something not confined to Brits.

Sadly, in yet another ill-advised attempt to out-UKIP Nigel “Thirsty” Farage, it seems Young Dave is trying to cause us to regress to those dark days by proposing that, to access any part of the social security system, everyone must “Speak English”. In this highly dubious propaganda exercise he has the willing support of Simon Walters of the Mail On Sunday, who has had the wheeze elevated to front page lead.

“Speak English or lose benefits: Cameron to stop payouts to immigrants who use taxpayer-funded translators” readers are told. And, as the man said, there’s more: “In a radical bid to slash Britain’s benefits bill, the Prime Minister intends to stop printing welfare paperwork in foreign languages and prevent claimants using taxpayer-funded translators at benefits offices”.

At least it is conceded that this “would also hit British residents who cannot speak English”. That is one reason it ain’t going to happen, although the MoS blames Corporal Clegg instead, because this fits with the Northcliffe House agenda. And you can tell this is a deliberate editorial decision by Geordie Greig, as the editorial leads on it, plus there is a pundit on board to reinforce the story.

That pundit is James Forsyth, telling “Tories talk directly to their heartland with 'Speak English' rule”, which is straightforward bullshit: this talks not to any heartland, but to plain and unvarnished bigotry. Then Mail on Sunday comment opines “Encouraging our neighbours to learn our language is not a punishment, but a positive benefit”. Cutting off benefits, though, is a punishment.

Fortunately, the roll-call of those in support shows that this is likely to be a non-starter: “The plans were been drawn up by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith ... Former Tory Cabinet Minister Liam Fox also gave the scheme the thumbs-up”. So, after the requisite period of kicking the story around to blame the Lib Dems, lawyers, “do-gooders” and the EU, that will be that.

But it’s most revealing to see just how desperate the Tories are right now.